Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Joe Mason wrote: > >> Mark Rowe wrote: >> >>> >>> On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai >>> o...@google.com>> wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Joe Mason wrote: > Mark Rowe wrote: > >> >> On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai >> o...@google.com>> wrote: >>> >>>On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe >>> wrote: >>> >>>

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Mark Rowe wrote: On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai > wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe mailto:mr...@apple.com>> wrote: There are also concerns about access to the data store of the

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Mark Rowe wrote: > Given what has been said so far I'm still not clear why Rietvald is a > better option than Review Board. > I think it's because we have a bunch of people who are (a) familiar with using it and/or (b) work on it and can fix any problems, whereas

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On 2009-06-11, at 15:16, Ojan Vafai wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: There are also concerns about access to the data store of the application, backup procedures, etc. Our existing servers are well understood in thi

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: > >> There are also concerns about access to the data store of the application, >> backup procedures, etc. Our existing servers are well understood in this >> regard. We've also found in the p

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Joe Mason wrote: > Mark Rowe wrote: > >> - UI is intimidating to newcomers. This is clearly subjective, but since >> the goal here is to make the review process friendlier, especially for new >> contributors, I think it deserves calling out. >> > FWIW, after playi

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Joe Mason wrote: Agreed. I expect will all end up calling it rfield soon enough (and I even typed that as rfiled the first time). I mean rveld, of course. I've been rereading Dracula, I think it's affecting my brain... Joe ___ webkit-dev mailing li

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Mark Rowe wrote: - UI is intimidating to newcomers. This is clearly subjective, but since the goal here is to make the review process friendlier, especially for new contributors, I think it deserves calling out. FWIW, after playing around with it for a few minutes I find its UI much, much frie

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Eric Seidel wrote: > At least one person has tried to tie review-board with bugzilla: > > http://www.visophyte.org/blog/2009/03/20/using-review-board-for-bugzilla-request-queues-reviews/ > > I expect that we'd have to hack review board to do bugzilla-based > authen

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: > On 2009-06-06, at 15:02, Peter Kasting wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: > >> Of the issues that Ojan mentioned in his original email, I see three that >> would need to be addressed before we could consider adopting Rie

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On 2009-06-06, at 15:02, Peter Kasting wrote: On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: Per Ojan's original email it is not as simple as adding a few URLs to some scripts, code changes would be needed to make it suitable for our purposes. Let's try and avoid hyperbole: it makes it

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Clarifications: On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Peter Kasting wrote: > I'm not trying to be hyperbolic. > On the other hand, I could simply be flat-out wrong. Although I did re-read Ojan's email and I don't I see him as saying there'd be a lot of actual coding needed to try Rietveld. - Doesn'

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Mark Rowe wrote: > Per Ojan's original email it is not as simple as adding a few URLs to some > scripts, code changes would be needed to make it suitable for our purposes. > Let's try and avoid hyperbole: it makes it difficult to have a reasonable > discussion. >

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On 2009-06-06, at 00:17, Peter Kasting wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Mark Rowe wrote: Dropping our existing practice of using Bugzilla for patch reviews is one way of addressing this. Folding the more useful features of Rietveld in to Bugzilla to improve Bugzilla-based patch rev

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

> This something of a non-sequiter, since it is trivial to create a script to > do the same with Bugzilla. I've heard mentions of a git-send-bugzilla > script that does most of this already, and I'm sure it could easily be > adapted for those preferring SVN. https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?i

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Mark Rowe wrote: > Dropping our existing practice of using Bugzilla for patch reviews is one > way of addressing this. Folding the more useful features of Rietveld in to > Bugzilla to improve Bugzilla-based patch reviews is another. We all seem to > be in agreem

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On 2009-06-05, at 22:50, Peter Kasting wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Darren VanBuren wrote: I agree that using RPC is inefficient, and that we don't want to make the review process any more of a pain. We could also try writing our own code review software specifically designed to

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Darren VanBuren wrote: > I agree that using RPC is inefficient, and that we don't want to make the > review process any more of a pain. We could also try writing our own code > review software specifically designed to work with Bugzilla, so that we > could run dire

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

I agree that using RPC is inefficient, and that we don't want to make the review process any more of a pain. We could also try writing our own code review software specifically designed to work with Bugzilla, so that we could run directly in the Bugzilla environment, and we could modify and

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

On 2009-06-05, at 19:02, Darren VanBuren wrote: Surprisingly, the bug isn't a duplicate, or if there is a dupe, it isn't filed correctly. But I agree that any code review tool should be integrated with bugs.webkit.org , otherwise there would be a huge disorganized mess and it wouldn't be

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

this popular open source tool. Dave From: Ojan Vafai To: Darren VanBuren Cc: David Kilzer ; Jeremy Orlow ; WebKit Development Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 7:25:40 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld This is what I meant by "light

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

gzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496670> Dave From: Jeremy Orlow To: Ojan Vafai Cc: WebKit Development Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:08:47 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld For what it's worth, I definitely think a tool like reitveld would help the code r

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

a dupe): Bugzilla needs better patch review process with annotations and versioned patches <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496670> Dave From: Jeremy Orlow To: Ojan Vafai Cc: WebKit Development Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:08:47 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] to reit

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

itself > (although I wouldn't be surprised if it's a dupe): > > Bugzilla needs better patch review process with annotations and versioned > patches > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496670> > > Dave > > > -----

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

eremy Orlow To: Ojan Vafai Cc: WebKit Development Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:08:47 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld For what it's worth, I definitely think a tool like reitveld would help the code review process. Inline comments and more context than the c

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

oned patches <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496670> Dave From: Jeremy Orlow To: Ojan Vafai Cc: WebKit Development Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 5:08:47 PM Subject: Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld For what it's worth, I definitely t

Re: [webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

For what it's worth, I definitely think a tool like reitveld would help the code review process. Inline comments and more context than the couple lines the diff provides are really, really helpful. On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Ojan Vafai wrote: > Sorry in advance for the long email. I'm tryi

[webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

Sorry in advance for the long email. I'm trying to be thorough. There's been a lot of discussion on #webkit about possibly using a code review tool like reitveld for webkit reviews. There's been various suggestions and a few misunderstandings, so it seems worth having a more formal discussion abou